Barack Obama

Obama, Unsurprisingly, Endorses Expanding Federal Protections for LGBT Folks

White House announces support for Equality Act.

|

I bet the togas are amazing in Gay Heaven
Newsweek

Though it still has little chance of passing through Congress, President Barack Obama has declared his support for the Equality Act, which would add sexual orientation and gender identity to several civil rights anti-discrimination protection laws. Press Secretary Josh Earnest made the announcement. Via The Washington Post:

White House press secretary Josh Earnest said the Obama administration had been reviewing the bill "for several weeks."

"Upon that review it is now clear that the administration strongly supports the Equality Act," he said. "That bill is historic legislation that would advance the cause of equality for millions of Americans.

"We look forward to working with Congress to ensure that the legislative process produces a result that balances both the bedrock principles of civil rights .?.?. with the religious liberty that we hold dear in this country," Earnest added.

Odd that he would add that last part, because the Equality Act specifically would forbid the use of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act as a defense against a claim of discrimination. It doesn't alter the parts of federal civil rights legislation that exempts religious and private clubs, so he's not completely wrong. He's just hiding the fact that the "religious liberty" would actually be restricted.

I've written extensively about the full text of the Equality Act before and how it represents where gay movement is pivoting to post the marriage victory. The law adds sexual orientation and gender identity to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act and provides anti-discrimination protection in employment, housing, lending, jury duty, and public accommodations.

What gets much less attention is that the Equality Act also massively expands what the federal government counts as a public accommodation. Federal law restricts public accommodations to dining establishments, hotels, gas stations, and public entertainment venues. State-level public accommodation laws tend to be broader, covering any form or retail establishment or service. Under current federal law, it would still be okay for a photographer or florist to decline to provide their services for a gay marriage, even if the feds added sexual orientation. The Equality Act would broaden the federal public accommodation law to match what many states have. This would mean that both the state and the Department of Justice could go after any complaint that a customer was denied service for being a minority, or a woman, or a man, or gay, or straight, or whatever is on the list. Even if one were to accept that the government should play a role in preventing businesses from discriminating against customers (and I'm not saying you should), it seems an unnecessary, punitive expansion for a sin that is not only not very common any longer but is also of fairly limited harm. And, as always, the private sector has any number of tools (bad press, boycotts, competition) to direct toward bigoted businesses.

Regardless, the Equality Act is not going anywhere in Congress, especially considering how transgender bathroom panic killed the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance a week ago. I'll say again what I said back when that happened: The government should focus its efforts on ending discriminatory behavior by the government (such as in jury service or contracting, et cetera). Leave the citizens and private businesses to combat private discrimination with the many powerful tools culture has provided for them.

NEXT: HUD Proposes Nationwide Smoking Ban in Public Housing

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Oh Civil Rights Act, when will your penumbra fade?

    1. this would do far more to kill the civil rights act than anything I could think of.

      1. The Equality Act will do what exactly to kill the Civil Rights Act?

      2. It is going to be interesting watching America twist itself into a pretzel trying to justify “civil rights” for (say) blacks, but not gays.

        1. But look at the horrific damage the civil rights act has done! Today black students can’t even go to their exams without kkk members shooting at them through windows (with hurtful sayings and poop swastikas) Do we want that same fate for gay people?

          1. I call them swashitkas. Hopefully it catches on.

            1. I call the perpetrator Shitler.

        2. It is going to be interesting watching America twist itself into a pretzel trying to justify “civil rights” for (say) blacks christians, but not gays.

          That will be the truly hilarious part.

          1. Sadly, America has been making that particular pretzel for centuries and is really good at it.

        3. black isn’t a behavior

          1. And religion is. What’s your point?

  2. What? Did you say “No?” I’m calling the cops.

  3. What REASON has not mentioned it seems is that discrimination laws violate not only our civil right to freedom of association BUT ALSO our civil right to freedom of belief.

    We have a civil right to discriminate !!! When is REASON going to say this ? ( maybe it has) πŸ™‚

    1. My work browser doesn’t have the Poe Detector extension installed. Can I get a ruling on this?

      1. I’m going with retarded since the article specifically discusses religious liberty while not mentioning freedom of association. Reason has discussed both before of course but hpearce’s comment makes no sense in relation to this particular article.

        1. Yeah, he really needs to troll harder. That was just embarrassing.

          D+

        2. It makes sense in establishing our civil right to discriminate !!! not a minor point in discussing discrimination laws !

          1. I was referring to your Not Only, But Also construction which was completely backwards in relation to this article.

            Also your retarded use of all caps for REASON.

            1. LOL, I am sorry my caps disturbed you more than the actual civil rights violations of our freedoms πŸ˜€

              1. The fight against all-caps is today’s greatest civil rights struggle.

      2. I detect Poe supporting the teaching of quackery to underprivileged children.

      3. I think its a DRINK at the very least.

        We’ve been horribly remiss about the drinking game.

        that said, Reason hasn’t been particularly good about ‘free association’ in the recent past. I think they’ve generally passed on vigorously asserting a ‘right to discriminate’, instead trying to put it in more feelgood terms.

        1. It seems to me that they’ve vigorously opposed public accommodation laws and the expansion of them to LGBT, they just haven’t supported the intentions and rhetoric of some of the more vocal opponents. Nothing wrong with that.

          Freedom of Association should be treated just like Freedom of Speech where you defend the rights of despicable people like Illinois Nazis and Westboro Baptist while not socially approving their message and actions.

          1. They’ve avoided even *using* the term ‘freedom of association’ in cases where it applied the most. Its not about avoiding “the nasty people” at all. Most recent cases where it applies there haven’t been particularly super-nasty-people to avoid anyway

            (e.g. the bar in Portland where refusing a few persistently-annoying trannies meant they lose their entire business? The Pizza place that *theorized* it would prefer not to cater Gay Weddings?)

            Does a baker (or anyone) have the right to refuse to serve customers (for whatever reason) or not? There’s not a whole lot of Hate-Bakers out there.

            (though there’s definitely that cute example of the guy who came in demanding an anti-gay cake, helping to highlight the double-standards people prefer)

            1. I’ll say again what I said back when that happened: The government should focus its efforts on ending discriminatory behavior by the government (such as in jury service or contracting, et cetera). Leave the citizens and private businesses to combat private discrimination with the many powerful tools culture has provided for them.

              From the article, what more do you want than that? It is the theme of pretty much every article that Reason publishes on the subject.

              1. What i actually said: they never so much as breathe the term “free association”

                I don’t know where your comment above comes from. link?

                Its pretty easy to find scott’s own dancing around use of the term in his past articles on the Gay-Baking-Social-Crisis

                “”I suggested then that perhaps it’s time to reconsider the idea of what counts as a “public accommodation” and also questioned whether we actually even need the government to resolve all cases of business bigotry. “”

                That’s generally the formula we’ve seen = ‘questioning’ the idea of Govt enforced Equal-Access; not asserting that there’s any fundamental right of businesses to choose how they want to run it, consequences be damned.

                Critics jump to the idiotic assumption that “everyone will choose Segregation!!”, rather than the actual scenario we see: religious business owners trying to conform to their beliefs. Society should be able to tolerate a ‘christian’ baker as easily as we tolerate a Kosher Deli

                The issue of “who people serve” is noted as different from “what” they’re asked to do, and its been suggested that arguments in favor of Christian Bakers is merely cover for a desire to discriminate against LGBTQjsdlkj *as customers*.

                I personally think that Tranny bars should be able to kick out straights if they want. Or at the very least, permit them to operate as a ‘club’ (which many places allow to discriminate).

                1. I don’t know where your comment above comes from. link?

                  It’s the summary paragraph of this very article you are commenting on. πŸ™‚

                  From the article,…

                  1. “It’s the summary paragraph of this very article you are commenting on. :)”

                    I plead NRTFABC-clause

                    (“never rtfa before commenting”)

            2. In March, Scott wrote about Indiana’s SB101:

              I understand that HRC and other gay groups oppose the law as a matter of principle against anti-gay discrimination. I get it, even if I don’t share their fears that businesses are just raring for an excuse to turn gay people away and don’t believe in these restrictions to freedom of association.

              It’s fundamentally unfair that people who are religious get additional opportunities to assert their freedom of association rights that others do not. Imagine if section 8b said the government couldn’t “substantially burden a person’s exercise of free association” except in cases where there’s a compelling government interest?

              In October, again from Scott:

              Libertarian defenses of discriminatory business practices on freedom of association grounds can come off as extremely callous when not well-worded or well-explained.

              1. It’s a silly complaint too, our position on public accommodation laws is pretty radical in this country. It is widely opposed across the whole political spectrum. And yet people come here to one of the most widely published places that takes that position and complain that their tone isn’t strong enough or something.

                I imagine Scott taking the positions he does on this issue as a gay man does not make him particularly popular at all the cocktail parties he is supposedly attending.

              2. “Libertarian defenses of discriminatory business practices on freedom of association grounds can come off as extremely callous when not well-worded or well-explained.”

                Well then its a challenge to explain them well, then. That doesn’t mean the challenge should be studiously avoided. (or seen as an excuse)

                I agree, its not easy. Particularly when the opposition always goes reductio-ad-Racial-Segregation at the first glance.

                But its also notable that even the SJW types find themselves desiring the ability to exclude on occasion. I don’t think it should be too difficult to point out that enforced ‘universality’ has potential negative consequences for everyone, not just the cultural majority.

                1. Well then its a challenge to explain them well, then. That doesn’t mean the challenge should be studiously avoided. (or seen as an excuse)

                  But that’s the point, Scott makes that statement then proceeds to make that libertarian defense, he’s not studiously avoiding it or using it as an excuse.

                  1. “Scott makes that statement then proceeds to make that libertarian defense, he’s not studiously avoiding it or using it as an excuse.”

                    You’re just repeating yourself: i pointed out the standard formula used and how it a) avoids using the term, and b) avoids characterizing it as a ‘right’, so much as a ‘desirable norm’ which we’d hope society would come to without ever having to force people to actually demand it.

                    1. i pointed out the standard formula used

                      I reject that this is the standard forumula.

                      a) avoids using the term,

                      BOTH of Nikki’s quoted paragraphs have the term “freedom of association” in them.

                    2. “”BOTH of Nikki’s quoted paragraphs have the term “freedom of association” in them.””

                      if you want to win a point that “the term is in fact used…” Sure. It is. Already conceded.

                      That its not typically used in any kind of vigorous assertion of any “right” of free association is also noted. You can have your technical point here and still be completely missing my broader one.

                    3. “”I reject that this is the standard forumula.””

                      You’re right. Some people don’t even make the case at all. Others have suggested the only reason to permit discrimination is to enable society to run them out of business as fast as possible.

                2. GILMORE, did you…not realize that my post was a refutation of your claim that they never say “freedom of association”? And that you also posted, after my post, that “they never so much as breathe the term”?

                  1. yes, he uses the term in those cases. I’ve generally found it to be the exception rather than the norm, but then i don’t read every single post on these topics. the more common formula-way of addressing it has been noted as well.

                    i understand perfectly well why the assertion of Free Association is (in my view, possibly others) ‘less than full-throated and vigorous’ here. Its simply not that popular.

                    I also think Scott is notable for being the *most* supportive of Reason writers. Others (Robby, ENB), notably less so

              3. These defenses are usually based on the “open to the public” signs , etc.

                But that excludes the fact that businesses certainly retain the right to kick people out or dis-invite them. And certainly it is not a promise that an actual. negotiated transaction will or must take place.

                Based on that, I think the logic to prohibit business discrimination fails too !

            3. “Anti-gay cake”

              Without looking at the link, a picture forms in my mind of a cake in the shape of the Trix rabbit with icing lettering that reads “silly faggot, dicks are for chicks”.

              1. That was really funny, Zeb.

            4. How finely you going to split this hair?

              It bothers me in recent time how much both bloggers & commenters here have engaged in microscopy. Some of that is understandable as what political analysts do in a presidential race that commands more att’n than there is stuff to look at. Frankly, I’d rather read about some of the hundreds of nearly unknown presidential candidates than about what someone thinks one of the leaders really meant the last time they opened their mouth. Or read coverage from the perspective of bloggers here about some political races in smaller jurisdictions or other countries. I know that costs more because then you’re not primarily massaging what the mass media are already reporting.

        2. REASON hasn’t discussed freedom of association much – as is the case with the libertarian movement !! That is because IMHO it poses a problem for those libertarians that are still limited-statists. πŸ™‚ And the LP and REASON would not want to BROACH THE ISSUE.

          So they chickened out !!! I repeat, this is just my opinion. πŸ™‚

          1. Still pretty weak, brah. Go read some of AmSoc or Tony’s posts and try again.

            1. It’s the smileys that are throwing me. That could indicate either D-level trolling or actual traumatic brain damage.

              1. I’m going to dig up your childhood pets and rape them. πŸ™‚

                1. That shirt looks good on you. πŸ™‚

                2. Thanks for that SF…I snorted and laughed at the same time. Sounded like someone trying to suffocate a piglet.

              2. You sound like a liberal throwing out insults because they know the argument is lost πŸ˜€

    2. The answer is “Hitler.” Or possibly “Shitler.”

  4. OT = EU Decides Glyphosate Not a Cause of Cancer

    This is one of the lynchpins in the Greens furious hatred of Monsanto; and whenever US agencies would announce that the product was actually “entirely safe”, they’d snootily point to assorted European groups who were far more skeptical.

    Whoops. So much for that.

    I’m sure they’re absolutely livid. One of our resident food-tards tried to make the case that Glyphosate was supertoxic-poisonous/carcinogenic not so long ago.

    1. Oh I’m sure the eurotards won’t let Greenpeace down in the end.

      1. They’ve got a far more established food-retail & agricultural sector which has benefited from pretending that the “bans” are in the public interest (rather than protectionism), and consumer groups are adamant that the ‘science’ conform to their fears.

        So, I don’t think the EU’s decision will change things much over there. But it is still a small victory for ‘fact’ over fear.

    2. Too bad tin foil hats cause cancer.

      1. THEY DO?!?!?! AUGH!!!!!!!!!!!

        /holds foil homburg out with trembling hands

  5. “Regardless, the Equality Act is not going anywhere in Congress”

    Not this session. Nor the next. Probably not the session after that, either.

    But I don’t think the activists expect this.

    They expect to wear down their opponents with the usual screams of “bigotry,” the usual purgings, etc., the usual blackmail (“it would be most unfortunate, Congressman, if the public found out about you your hypocritical anti-family-values consorting with that donkey”), and the “OMG I know some gay people so let me trample on associational and religious freedom to show how much I care about them!”

    Maybe the law will pass after a few years. Maybe it will be adopted in bits and pieces.

    But we’ve seen from the gay marriage debate how “this will never pass, you paranoid weirdo” to “how dare you oppose this law that just passed, you bigot!”

  6. “Regardless, the Equality Act is not going anywhere in Congress”

    Not this session. Nor the next. Probably not the session after that, either.

    But I don’t think the activists expect this.

    They expect to wear down their opponents with the usual screams of “bigotry,” the usual purgings, etc., the usual blackmail (“it would be most unfortunate, Congressman, if the public found out about you your hypocritical anti-family-values consorting with that donkey”), and the “OMG I know some gay people so let me trample on associational and religious freedom to show how much I care about them!”

    Maybe the law will pass after a few years. Maybe it will be adopted in bits and pieces.

    But we’ve seen from the gay marriage debate how “this will never pass, you paranoid weirdo” to “how dare you oppose this law that just passed, you bigot!”

    1. “Derp, just because laws like this have frequently passed on the state and local level, and just because ‘civil rights’ laws for gays has more popularity even than gay marriage, doesn’t mean we have to worry about this bill or a bill like it!”

      1. And in the meantime, voting on the bill will have the effect of locking in the Democrats to the most radical version of the legislation possible. So if they every have to negotiate for a more “moderate” bill, what’s “moderate” will have shifted in a gay-rights direction.

        1. Oh, and one more thing:

          It’s a great talking point to attack Republicans in 2016. Even the “moderate” Republicans who would have been willing to support a milder bill will probably balk at overriding religious freedom and making everything under the sun into a public accomodation.

          So that way there’s little chance of getting Republican votes, since the bill is as radical as can be.

          Therefore, they want every Republican to vote against the bill so that they can be attacked in their states and districts as waging a War on Gays.

  7. I don’t care what you yokels think. I don’t see a problem with businesses having ramps and doors that open with a button.

    1. Did you get those spinning rims for your Rascal yet?

      1. I decided against cultural appropriation.

        1. So you went with the jacked suspension and monster truck tires instead?

          1. It’s not wrong to stick with your own kind.

            1. My mental image of you is basically Eugene from The Walking Dead. Buck naked of course.

              1. Unlike Eugene, I speak in the high-flown diction of a fine Southern gentleman.

  8. One Hand Giveth, The Other Taketh Away

    Everyone needs to pay higher electrity bills and taxes so D.C. can socially engineer the energy economy. Its the price of civilization, or something.

  9. The law adds sexual orientation and gender identity to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act and provides anti-discrimination protection in employment, housing, lending, jury duty, and public accommodations.

    When I lived in Capitol Hill, I was the token straight guy in my condo complex.

    Seriously.

    1. How did they feel about being forced to live around a pervert?

      1. Well…

        *shifts in seat uncomfortably*

        One of the downstairs neighbors was kind of happy about it. And that’s all I have to say about that.

  10. What is everyone scared about? This is AMAZING provided you are at peace with lying to yourself. Gender Identity is self-determined, and it is as easy as selecting your favorite high calorie junk food at your over-capitalized green grocer. If I want to say I am a woman who is attracted to women, so I can use the lady’s restroom and scope some sweet toilet action, I can now legally do that at work and cannot be fired for it! Same goes for the ladies who are men interested in men. Let’s just have communal bathrooms!

    Plus, not that the EEOC is overburdened or anything, if this law passes ANYONE can start an investigation into discrimination claims. It’s going to be a great time at that office, real zeal for “justice” on its way there.

    “They fired me because I am a woman in man’s body working in a non-trans friendly environment. I had to use a bathroom that isn’t my gender; women refused to date me because I called myself a lesbian and they called me names behind my back, like “hairy bitch” and “bull-dyke.” They also laughed at me when I wore heels to work and requested Maternity leave. Please help me be the me that I want to be.”

    1. So you’re a man pretending to be a woman pretending to be a man? Isn’t that the plot of Victor, Victoria?

      1. I am just being the me that I know I am inside, but only after I saw the benefits the real me would receive should I choose to be that me, and not the old me I was when I was first born.

    2. I say just allow anyone to legally change their age, sex or race in the same way you can change your name. Then no one will know who to discriminate against or hate anymore. Problem solved.

      1. It’s problematic that people automatically assume I’m a white person based solely on the color of my skin.

  11. I repeat , we have a civil right to discriminate ! The sooner we are willing to say so the better, lest the political left win that war over our civil rights !

    1. I don’t have the heart to look, but I’m betting that other discussion groups are filling up with comments just like this one.

      1. Notorious, I hopes so !!! I feel like I am the only libertarian on earth who has discovered this and the importance of freedom of association in fighting the left πŸ˜€

        1. By leaving Democratic Underground for H&R, you lowered the average intelligence of both forums.

    2. I’m going with a lefty attempting shitty satire at this point.

      1. Whether it’s satire or not he is correct. We do have a civil right to discriminate perhaps we would be better off just saying so rather then trying to put it in nicer politically correct terms.

        1. And if that doesn’t convince people, we should just say that poopNazi lynch mobs are destroying our civil rights.

        2. Metahard …. Thankyou πŸ™‚

        3. No, we should focus on freedom of association which includes the right to associate and not associate with whomever we want for whatever reason. This is much better than focusing on the “right to discriminate” or “religious liberty” because it applies to everyone and has a much broader application. For example, when you accept that all commercial activity is protected by freedom of association their are a whole host of government laws and regulations that violate that right such as licensing laws, restrictions on sales of alcohol at certain times, etc.

          1. Freedom of association does apply to everyone ! All free societies are built upon the principle as a basic SOCIAL RIGHT ! (which also happens to be an individual one too)

            Not all commercial activity is protected — those that violate our rights are prohibited !

            By yes, the first lesson is that Freedom of Association does indeed protect our freedom to economic associations πŸ™‚ AND the free market is a market based upon the concept of freedom of association.
            The “proof” for free markets as a moral choice !

          2. “Right to discriminate” and “freedom of association” are the same thing. What you are arguing about is a matter of branding, not substance. Discrimination has a negative connotation while association doesn’t. But they are synonyms.

            1. They aren’t synonyms, the right to discriminate is only a small subset of freedom of association. Freedom of association can also be used in the positive as well, such as the freedom to employ/rent/sell to someone from another country who may have come here without the government’s permission.

              1. What about convicts serving time in prison?

                1. There are too many of them?

              2. As I mentioned elsewhere, freedom of association WITH freedom of belief covers both the decision-making angle of discrimination and the association angle that may or may not derive from that decision-making.

            2. There is definitely too much focus on the negative side of discrimination. Discrimination based on mostly meaningless factors like race, who you like to fuck, etc. is generally bad. But that is only a tiny subset of the ways in which people discriminate.

      2. Agree. they probably don’t even understand what they’re agitating for.

    3. Suuure, ’cause the NAP says so. Wait, what?

    4. I discriminate against people who use exclamation points.

      1. Which is your giht of course πŸ™‚

        The freedom of belief I will set out if people don’t see the association directly.
        Freedom of association not only protects our right to hold beliefs BUT ALSO to make decisions for our life derived from our beliefs.

        Let me re-state the belief on racism.

        Freedom of association not only protects a racists right to hold beliefs BUT ALSO a racists right to make racist decisions derived from racist beliefs.

        Add to freedom of association and you have established our civil right discriminate πŸ™‚

        1. You know, I think it would be great if businesses had the right to act upon their racist thoughts. This way they could identify themselves, and I could choose not to do business with them. As it is they can’t legally identify themselves, so there is no way to know that they are assholes who don’t deserve my money.

          1. ^^^This.

          2. They do !! as far as I am concerned. They are individual entities with rights too

        2. Excuse me Association to Belief above. sorry

  12. The NAP has power.

    TNFW (Too Noisy for Work).

  13. Yay!! Now all those transgender people I know will have equality!!! What a relevant issue to normal, everyday people!!!

    1. Won’t anyone think of the rights of the Majority?! ::sheds single tear::

      1. You can be Normal and Everyday too, Hugh. If only you just embrace it.

        1. Which way to the welfare office?

          1. That’s where you’ll find the EQUALITY, Hugh. In the welfare office.

      2. Way to culturally appropriate from proud Sicilian actor Iron Eyes Cody.

        1. *flings bag of garbage out of moving car*

  14. Protections is really not the correct word. Maybe special privileges.

    1. You know heterosexual is a sexual orientation, no?

      “race, color, religion, national origin, or sex” I’m assuming you have all of those things apply to you just as equally as they apply to a Honduran woman who practices voodoo.

      1. Now explain how DADT and ‘separate but equal’ work.

        1. Huh?

        2. What about either of those things is unclear to you? And how are you trying to draw a parallel here? DADT wasn’t just “nobody in the military can talk about their personal lives*. It was specifically that any person who was into the same sex could be reported to superiors for being interested in the same sex.

          It was overtly discriminatory to homosexuals/bisexuals and ONLY them.

          Or in the words of Not okay, it provided special privileges for straights.

      2. It’s adorable that you think this kind of law is applied equally to different groups. Care to explain to me why it’s ok for a public university to do this (http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/24980/) these days?

    2. ^ this X 1000. Not that Hugh would understand, bless his trans-ginger heart….

      1. Fuck you, Oppressor. My body may look like Clint Howard, but my soul looks like Ron Howard.

    3. Exactly. This is not “equal protection under the law”; this is giving certain groups special privileges under the law.

      Maybe the end game is that everyone belongs to a privileged group, so everyone is equal again. However, “intersectionality” requires that we score everyone, and have a hierarchy of whose privilege trumps. So I’m not optimistic that we are going to back into equality before the law.

      1. Maybe the end game is that everyone belongs to a privileged group,

        As Jesse said, everyone falls into some category of “race, color, religion, national orgin, or sex” as well as sexual orientation and gender identity.

        1. Sounds like ableist talk to me.

        2. Just like how people who are ‘separate but equal’ really are treated equally, huh? I could give a shit what’s written on the paper; how the law is going to be enforced is what matters. And anti-discrimination laws go essentially unenforced for perpetrator classes. So yes, they are special privileges.

          Can I ask why people still try to hide behind the mere wording of laws? Half the European colonies were never actually ‘owned’ by the colonial countries on paper. That many of the laws that kept black people from voting well into the 20th century actually made no explicit mention of black people? The bad things that come out of bad laws and policies are usually not explicitly detailed in the wording of the laws and policies; that’s how they get passed in the first place.

      2. Yes, and that is because the political left is winning the battle on the state’s right to establish discrimination laws as civil rights protection when they actually violate our civil rights … All the way back to Civil Rights laws if necessary.

  15. The reason LGBT get special treatment and One-Armed Amenian Dwarfs do not is because people are not going ape-shit over the ladder.

    1. Ladders would probably be hard for one-armed dwarves.

      1. Seconded!!!

      2. I knew I’d get a bite :

      3. You know who else is hard for one-armed dwarves?

    2. I once went ape shit over the ladder. Almost cost me my maintenance job at the zoo.

      1. How’d you get your rascal up the ladder anyway?

    3. I love you guys…you guys are great !!!

  16. Another step down the slippery slope.

    Honestly, I’m just burning out on this. Whatev. A few more BadThinkers will be punished. A few more GoodThinkers well extract money from the public.

    And, in time, this will all be washed away in the collapse, or simple withering away, of American society. To be replaced by something else, hopefully better. Who knows?

    I am pretty sure that the trashing convulsions of the richest, most powerful, most creative society the planet has seen to date, as it turns on itself and systematically destroys its own foundations and reverts to the mean of cronyism, tribalism, etc., will be a source of astonishment to future historians.

    1. Why are you such a RACIST majority – monger, RC?!?!

      / Hughderp

    2. It will be interesting to see what happens when all of the members of the military are forced to choose between fighting for their country or fighting for their home.

      1. Those that fight for their country will be hailed as heroes and have statues of them placed in parks. Those who fight for their homes will be branded traitors, and the memory of them scrubbed from the history books.

    3. Or just business as usual. What powerful creative civilization in history hasn’t eventually eaten itself?

      1. Given recent technological advances, I think the fall of the US is going to be a little more spectacular than the fall of either the Roman or British Empires.

        Hard to say though.

        1. It’s fun to think so, but I think ‘not with a bang but a whimper’ is much more likely. I think it’s more of a cycle though than a rise and fall, and we may just soon be going through our ‘East Germany’ phase. Maybe after 40 or 50 years of it people will get tired of having to look over their shoulders to make sure the thought police don’t hear what they say, people will start tearing down the proverbial wall again.

      2. What powerful creative civilization in history hasn’t eventually eaten itself?

        The one I made in SimCity.

        1. My Sims always eventually resort to cannibalism

          1. Stimulant Green is people!

    4. And, in time, this will all be washed away in the collapse, or simple withering away, of American society. To be replaced by something else, hopefully better.

      You’re more an optimist than I am. If you look at the overwhelming majority of human history, cronyism, tribalism, etc. were the norm. And most of human existence was misery, suffering, terror and drudgery as varying gangs fought out who would get the wildly smaller amount of resources. Really, the last few hundred years have been, by an order of magnitude, the exception to that rule. I’m always inclined to wonder what if we aren’t on any upward path? What if this is all just a momentary break from human history with reversion to the mean an inevitability?

      1. The way I see it, humans need crisis and conflict. Without some grand existential threat to fight, the conflicts just become more and more petty.

        I see the near future working out in one of two ways:

        Some apocalypse that destroys a good portion of the population and resets things back to basic tribalism.

        Escape to the stars where people can once again expand away from those they can’t live with.

      2. That is an interesting point.

    5. “…trashing convulsions…destroys it’s own foundations…”

      Wow. I LOL’d at this. Nice job!

      You weren’t serious, right? Cause if you were your burnout level has reached a point where medication is required. I recommend a good red…

  17. Perhaps I need to call out REASON more explicitly about my comments here. Something I have never done since reading the yellow pamphlet ones published at/from MIT πŸ˜€

  18. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.HomeJobs90.com

  19. Thanks for highlighting the religious and public accomodation aspects. – Looks like the original 1964 framing of public accomodations is based on a more narrow take of the commerce clause.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.